Georgia's President, Mikheil Saak-ashvili, accused the Russians of blatantly breaching the ceasefire agreement and accused Western nations of failing his country. "I feel that they are partly to blame," he said. "Not only those who commit atrocities are responsible, but so are those who fail to react."
The day had started with a Russian column entering Gori, the biggest city across the border from South Ossetia, abandoned by the Georgian army on Monday. At first, there was relative calm inside the near-deserted city, which had come under sustained attacks from the Russians in the hours before the ceasefire. Russian troops set up checkpoints and a contingent moved to a Georgian army base and took arms and ammunition, then the building was set on fire. It was unclear whether this was done by regular Russian forces or militias.

Soon, reports began to surface about atrocities in the surrounding countryside. But people injured by the militias no longer have anywhere to go for treatment after the staff at Gori hospital were evacuated. A 28-year-old surgeon, Georgi Abramishvili, was killed in a Russian missile strike at the hospital on Tuesday, and the dean, Professor Gurami Guasalia decided it was too risky. He said: "I know there are a lot of people injured in the villages, but what can I do? I have responsibility towards my staff as well."

Russian officers were guarded about their mission. But one of them, Captain Pavl Baskarov, said: "We tried to find and talk to Georgian officials in Gori but couldn't find any." Asked about the abuse of civilians by militias, he said: "I do not know about that, but I am sure if people have committed crimes they will be punished."

I do wish that research into these complicated fields yields positives that are not easily hijacked by unscrupulous individuals. I do fear it will be a long time before we mature enough as a human race to sanely help one another based on these types of research.

Understandably, there will be some of us who will be evercautious at even the hint of a new rise of eugenics given the indelible legacy, victims, and graves it has left already.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I appreciate you returned to a more civilized mode of debate. And I never claimed to be smarter than you, I might as well not be, and I'd have to be a complete idiot to think I am smarter than any Turk/African/fillminorityinhere alive. It's important not to confuse differences in AVERAGE intelligence between ethnic groups with INDIVIDUAL intelligence.

History has everything to do with it. In the name of science and eugenics, has led to the killing and destruction of millions. I like to believe that I am a man of science (although from your vantage you'd probably snicker at that comment). Science is about gaining knowledge through objective analysis of some phenomena and yes taking the results to where they lead. We have to be careful in, what we do in the name of science though.

Ok so now I acquiesce – you’re smarter than me genetically and environmentally. Now what? You don’t let your daughter marry me for fear that our children will be not quite as smart as you? We undertake selective breeding programs to improve the race? Worse, some crazy guy decides to eradicate everyone that doesn’t look like him or enslave us to flip your burgers, manicure your lawns, fold your sheets? Sterilize the Mexicans or Turks because they’re dumber? What happens when all the blacks, latinos, Asians are killed? Kill the jews? And everyone shorter than 5’6”? Everyone with freckles? Red hair? Kill all the women? (no we can’t kill the women, we need them but we can take away their rights because after all they’re dumber right?) It plays Alwayskillthemessenger. It plays. We’ve done all that already in the name of eugenics and science. And, we’ve killed millions. That’s where Lynn’s work takes us. We just lived it last century.

We know today for a fact that human beings have not been segregated enough as groups to evolve into two or more species even though we’ve adapted and colonized the planet.

As to the goatherder comment, there is truth in jest – I am not only the son of a goatherder, I was a goatherder when I was young. I grew up on a ranch and both my father and I read and read when I was with the herd. Can you imagine if some self righteous jerk had come along and sterilized my grandfather before he had my father simply because he was not a city dweller. WE DID THAT Alwayskillthemessenger in the 1900s. How many did we silence in the name of Progress, Eugenics, and science? How many jews were silenced in the name of Eugenics. That is where Lynn’s science goes (and his methods are flawed, which truly makes it dangerous).

That is why its taboo. Yet here we stand – in the name of science. You never answered my question.

Dear anonymous,What you need to understand is that history has nothing to do with this, nothing whatsoever. It's about finding the truth, whatever that may be, and so far IQ testing has yielded results as cited below. I have no doubt at all that Lynn, Rushton and others in the field are strictly objective and publish what they find in good faith. Eugenics & acknowledging differences in IQ between ethnic groups = genocide is a non sequitur. Genocide is NOT a necessary consequence of good science and honest and realistic social policies. (example: Singapore!)And there is no valid reason to instrumentalise history in an effort to silence people and stifle honest debate.@ Bobjac:IQ is important in this context because it's an enormously important factor that the author simply ignored. The author even claimed being "puzzled" by the Turkish students' "poor showing" in Denmark in spite of a more inclusive, allegedly fairer system. IQ may hold the answer this "puzzling riddle".

Human beings originating in Africa, moved out and colonized the planet, evolving inconsequential trait differences as they went around the world all the while remaining ONE species. And the people who stayed in Africa also evolved further their inconsequential differences.

The study of "stress" on the human animal is more interesting than attempting to study "intelligence" which has caused so much pain.

Sincerely,

Just Anonymous
Son of a Goatherder
(Yes I have significant and serious academic credentials but I don't throw them around with the intent of making my words be heavier)

@Alwayskillthemessenger -- the internet will allow these arguments to be held in open forums vs behind closed doors which I hope will lead to less genocide in the name of superiority. One final question - do you believe the holocaust occurred and that millions of helpless jews were killed innocently and persecuted over the ages? Answer me that, and perhaps we can still have a decent discourse (because your rhetoric advocates those narrow views).

Just reading the comments, it's difficult to recognize that we read the same article. Sometimes you have to "make do" with whatever historical data you have available to see if you can draw out any information. I guess the article must have "gored a lot of people's pet ox", but the conclusion I drew from the article is:

1. Recognizing and continually responding to children's (or implied adults) capabilities and interests enhances their educational performance. This is as opposed to deciding at an early age the vocation that a child was "capable of" or "smart enough for" without continually evaluating it. This seems like would also apply to low expectations the US education system has for the "non-advanced" classification students in each grade.

2. Interest in education (family as well as people they associate with) has a strong influence... as measured by the change in different performance of 1st, 2nd and 3rd generations in the new country.

I guess I'm not sufficiently political correct for the educational field, but I fail to see what the article had to do with labeling the IQ of races, etc., and the "results" were attributed to the education system as well cultural expectations the immigrants brought with them.

Seems like the same old story that so many in education field would rather talk about side issues than deal with facing up to the need for a different education model that includes responsibility for performance of the system.... they would rather not face that and confuse the issue with their own pet theories and perceived attacks on their political correctness sacred cows (oops, I mentioned a common term "sacred cow", which I'm sure will launch a whole discussion in the polical correctness field as attacking at particular "race" in lieu of discussing the content of the artilce.

Just one last thing: In the age of the internet, incorrect views imposed by certain subversive interest groups in the guise of "political correctness" stand no chance. You're losing ground rapidly and you know it.

Since you insist on namecalling and labeling, I'll fire back and label you for what you represent (if not for what you are): Nazi, KKK, Himmler, Milošević, Khmer. And now that we've thoroughly degenerated to 5th grade.

See the problem with attempting to study human intelligence broken down by these things called "races or ethnicity" in an attempt to label one group "superior to another" you wind up degenerating into this basal hatred and rage that leads to the senseless killing of hundreds of millions - which is just abhorent.

I wouldn't doubt the altruism of Lynn if he were truly academic (not that you can gauge intelligence with the antiquated IQ test) -- but in conducting his research using flawed datasets and tests (all the items I mentioned before), he simply incites. Its not meta-study, its junk science because he publishes junk data (as bad as intelligent design): junk in, junk out. But, even if he were thorough and careful in his work, he would still be adding to that basal hatred and for that, I can't excuse him. The fact that he's not careful, makes him truly abhorrent. I'm sure he thinks he'll be vindicated in 500 years at pioneering the study of human intelligence among groups - but at what cost? 500million or a full billion souls lost in the name of eugenics? Is it worth it when in reality we're all identical (black, white, jew, latin, chinese, russian, etc).

The readers of the economist are an intelligent lot - we'll let them decide the merit of the studies of Lynn against the backdrop of the Holocaust and the Khmer attrocities. (and yes they did happen - I've met a few survivors and it plainly hurts to know that we as man did that to our fellow man.)

You call yourself a messenger -- Go back and tell your boss that he finds us here standing resolute against you (and we'll let the arms merchants make a fortune selling weapons to both sides if you take up arms) because that is what this is, incite division and then sell weapons to both sides...that is the true hidden agenda that Lynn fuels (he's but a tool, as are you, as am I -- and the true crime is in being blind).

@ justanonymous - or can I call you Noel Mr. Ignatiev?1.Lynn is "controversial" because his subject is a taboo topic. He dares venture where others won't, and deserves praise for it. 2. Lynn does NOT claim Jews "are among the least intelligent on earth" - he gives an IQ of 103 for Ashekanazim and of 91 for oriental Jews (benchmark - UK: 100). 3. YES - his data are very wide in scope. I see no fault in that. It's basically a meta-study. Why don't you try to find some more "pleasant" results? (there are none!)4. Master race? - I actually have some of his books and I've never encountered that concept anywhere, that's libellous. Never again? Oh please. You're so predictable.

I think that this debate would be better informed if people studied the accumulated evidence of one century of intelligence testing. Far from being a discredited concept, IQ is probably the strongest predictor of life outcomes, though it is only the best of a generally weak set of measures. Many of the criticisms about small sample sizes and tests inconsistencies apply equally to scholastic tests, yet the best studies (on very large population samples) show strong correlations between both measures, typically 40% shared variance. IQ is also related to health and lifespan, very possibly in a causal manner. The extensive literature on intelligence, with well-founded counter arguments and replies, can be a bit technical but is not very difficult. It is certainly something The Economist could discuss, perhaps in a special report, rather than avoid as a taboo.Dr James ThompsonSenior Lecturer in Psychology

@ Alwayskillthemessenger -- you cite perhaps the most controversial author on eugenics (Lynn). The fact he has a PhD means little if he's politiclly driven and uses poorly aquired data (look at his data sets: small, inconsistent, taken under different conditions, from different sized pools of people, sometimes in their native countries, sometimes not, and much gathered with little statistical rigor, separated sometimes by decades, of people of different ages, and different versions of tests, used to measure intelligence via IQ -- itself a contested and debatably a flawed test) and from this hodge podge of flawed data Lynn draws similarly and profoundly flawed conclusions that Jews are one of the least intelligent people on earth and that his race is the master race. Horrible analysis by Lynn: deeply flawed, and politically driven -- he sees what he wants to see in the numbers. You'd think that after killing 100,000,000 people last century that we'd have learned our lesson on this eugenics thing but apparently those roots run deep indeed and its frankly scary.

We have to stand up and say, "NEVER AGAIN." Lynn's work is a thinly disquised attempt to separate and inflame. Dr Lynn sounds like an academic and even if he sincerely wants to look and measure genetic intelligence - he should have the maturity to see the terrible damage his line of thinking has to humanity...far beyond any positive that could be gained from the work.

Homo Sapiens has colonized the planet, showing a tremendous adaptability to her/his environment (regardless of this stereotype concept of race that we try to hard to impose - but why?... black people are genetically the same as Dr Lynn - a white man). Race itself is a construct designed to separate --- why can't we just be "human." We'd fight less.

Take me for example, I'm an immigrant's child. What if Lynn's work showed that I had an aptitude to go be a janitor and that all people from my "race" had an aptitude to go be janitors and burger flippers --- would that not in effect make me a slave? Condeming me to clean the houses of those who are 'smarter' than me? How horrible. I'd rather struggle to be a mediocre doctor in a field where I don't have an aptitude than to condemn my so called "race" to slavery.

If Lynn wants to do valuable work, it would be more interesting to study "stress" on humans to understand how "stress" plays into learning new things by individuals. How do immigrant children who experience the stress of having to learn more in a foreign environment --- how does that play into learning. I think it important to test but not with the intent of attempting to determine if one person/group is "better," or "smarter" than another.

As a disclaimer: I believe we're all equal with the same innate capacity for learning and that the concept of race should be erased. We all have the capacity -- its whether our environment forces us to develop and whether we have the desire to reach for the stars or not. Some of my jewish friends are among the smartest people I have ever met, as are my Indian, Asian, Latin American, and German friends I have -- and my French friends are extremely intelligent as well as are my African friends.

The day I stand face to face with a fellow "man" and look beyond the fact that he's "black," or "jew," or "woman," or "French, British, Russian, German," is a day that I think we'll take a vast leap forward in our evolution.

It is fascinating to see these kinds of comparisons from outside of the US. Inside of the US, studies like this are carried out often. In the US, immigrant children who come here legally (Chinese, Indian, etc) tend to work very hard and outperform the general US population in school. Unfortunately, the children of these children perform at the general US level. Immigrant children who come here illegally (Mexican, Central American, etc), especially those who find large communities where they do not have to integrate into society, perform at a similar to slightly lower level to Americans of the same income level. Presumably this is because they didn't have to learn English and therefore couldn't learn much in school.

Indian and Chinese migrants in UK originate from different strata of society than migrants from Turkey or East Europe. Asian migrants know value of education and have pressures from family to excel in studies. Their parents are likely to be better educated than parents of Turkish migrants. Natives of western Europe have become lethargic as education or no education, their children are taken care of by welfare state. Indians and Chinese immigrants are present day equivalent of jews of medieval times. Without counting skills, they could not survive.

Ignoring genetics may be politically correct but it is
unscientific and leads to detrimental political solutions.

In a family (where there is no racial stigmatization)
siblings may have markedly different aptitudes, abilities
and, also, motivation.

This is recognized as true by pedagogues and the
general public--and is denied by no one, not even the
most politically correct vocalists.

No one would disagree that sibling differences are
due, almost entirely, to inherited factors.

If this is true in families why is it not true
in the greater human family?

Forcing societies to ignore inherited differences
came into the political scene less than fifty
years ago with the advent of a new political power
structure primarily in the West. Terms like: "Racism"
"Xenophobia" and "Politically correct" were not used
in the last century.

This new value system coincided with the use of
immigrants as low cost labor in order to fatten
the profits business owners. The persistence
of the new value system is now involved in the
entrenched governmental hierarchy which must prove,
scientifically or pseudo-scientifically, that they
are functional and should not be sacked.

Humans, however, inately recognize when their
peers have talent and that talented is inherited.
That is why the vestigages of aristocracy is
prominent across the globe. That is why people of
all nationalities point to a parent or a grandparent
as the source of a child's behavior.

Compelling students to follow paths in which they are
incapable is just as demeaning as not giving them
the freedom to choose based on their talents
and their personality.

Don't blame me, I didn't do the studies:IQ by nation according to Richard Lynn, Ph.D. (Cambridge)UK: 100 (benchmark)Germany: 107China (northeast Asia): 109Turks in Germany: 86( for some of those see: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article697134.ece)Lastly - Jews in the USA according to THE ECONOMIST:

The evolution of intelligence Natural genius?Jun 2nd 2005 From The Economist print editionAshkenazim generally do well in IQ tests, scoring 12-15 points above the mean value of 100, (...)He argues that the professions occupied by European Jews were all ones that put a premium on intelligence. Of course, it is hard to prove that this intelligence premium existed in the Middle Ages, but it is certainly true that it exists in the modern versions of those occupations. Several studies have shown that intelligence, as measured by IQ tests, is highly correlated with income in jobs such as banking. (...)Put these two things together—a correlation of intelligence and success, and a correlation of success and fecundity—and you have circumstances that favour the spread of genes that enhance intelligence.Dear ECONOMIST:What sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.